Lol, this is me, a 100x dev, screwed over by big co employer. Decide to go solo and slowly build a company to compete with them. Started part time 12 years ago. I think I could easily hit $1B valuation within 10 years. It is already super profitable and still growing. Eventually I’ll cost the competitors so much business that it’ll be much cheaper for them to buy me out for $Bs. If not it’ll still throw off $Ms in cash per year.
By my definition 10x/100x dev means a person who makes decision which require 100x less resources to execute to achieve the same goal.
For example, one can build clean, maintainable and monitored codebase/infra, which will support business goals and rapid evolution in long term, while some group of mediocre engineers can build overcomplicated system, over-polluted by bugs and technical debt, which will be significant liability rather than useful asset.
I’m amused that the 100x dev caught more flack than a likely solo $B bootstrap. In my view developer ability follows the Pareto distribution.
I was born to program and have done it all my life and it’s all I do. I’ve been formally trained and have worked at world leading research institutions. I’ve always been considered a bit of a freak by my peers.
I currently have two direct competitors, both have 100s of developers and are staffed by thousands. Despite starting after them I was able to ship a key feature long before them.
That's probably what it means but it's also a weird thing to measure because depending how you define "average" you can juke the stats any way you want. If I said "hire" to a random resume that comes in for a job, the value of either the median or mean developer is likely very close to zero if not negative, and that's probably true even if you just look at devs who are actually employed writing code for generic companies. If you restrict to better companies you quickly climb the productivity curve, and at places like Google it's pretty rare to find someone who is a 10x dev as compared to company peers (though you can have 10 or 100x impact pretty easily if you're good at almost any part of business other than writing code and know how to thrive in a bloated corporate environment).
Cash, as in free cash flow. Maybe not the best usage of the term, but better than revenue. And secret in that people in this niche don’t advertise the opportunity as new competition would cut into profits.
AFAIK the Afghan commanders stole their soldiers pay so the soldiers sold their weapons to the Taliban. The Taliban taking it back over seems like a natural consequence.
I think a lot of that wage theft was actually from soldiers that didn't exist: upwards of 100,000 on the roles that can't be accounted for. As for the Afghan equipment that has ended up in Taliban hands, that appears to be the result of the Taliban capturing it. That is happening sometimes even without a fight as Afghan soldiers believe they're being abandoned by the US to an impossible fight.
Either way, a significant amount of Taliban weaponry was provided by Russia.
Some tech jobs are only available in a handful of companies that were a part of the cartel. Some of us took the bet that a big investment in education in one of these specialties would pay off. The cartel effectively suppressed the pay off. Now these companies are complaining that the supply of specialists has dried up.
With recent limits on H1B, those companies aren’t wrong to say that the supply has dried up. That said, it means we have more leverage when it comes to remote work. If it means changing companies, so be it.
US companies are now being hoisted by their own petard.
There are not that many exploitable smart people left, even internationally. In my applied research niche they already hired internationally and the ability was rare, being high functioning autistic was basically a prerequisite. Supply dried up because these people have better options now; start ups, finance, crypto, independent scientists, more promising companies in their home countries.
It’s much easier for me to change companies than for companies to change. I’ve been remote for 7 years and will retire long before going back to an office.
I became known as a conspiracy theorist amount my friends when I told them about this. A week later the Snowden revelations came out and yet somehow I’m still the conspiracy theorist.
Years ago I bought a tiny hockey puck sized computer to act as an internal web server. AFAIK there seemed to be no way for me to prevent it from going to sleep, I presume it was due to a similar regulation. This one from the EU. Had to throw the thing out.
I’m not looking forward to having to fight hardware / software locks on my computer that make it go to sleep all the time.
I've never heard of any power regulation like that in the EU. Any idea what directive that might even be from?
Edit: looks like 617/2013. Weird that I've never heard about this. This is about total power consumption per year though, so that thing would probably either be inefficient as hell or misclassified for some reason. None of the sleep mode regulations should apply to your case.
Sounds like a user misconfiguration issue to me. I've never had an issue keeping a device from going to sleep when it's... actively doing something... like running services.
It occurred in both Windows and Ubuntu. In Windows “Never” wasn’t an option for Sleep (edit; I forget if it wasn’t an option or selecting it didn’t work), in Ubuntu the usual disable sleep commands didn’t work. Someone in the Ubuntu forums suggested there was a recent power management change due to EU reg and the code around it was freshly buggy. I spent a day on it before cutting my losses.
The SFO has a habit of not finding sufficient evidence, I wouldn’t read too much into that other than perhaps they too are incompetent. In my view they are also likely corrupt as well.
AFAIK it was good old fashioned accounting fraud. Losses booked as marketing expenses, lifetime revenue of contracts booked immediately, bundling overpriced software with underpriced hardware to change the revenue mix to get better valuation multiples. The fact that such blatant fraud could be missed for so long is an indictment of everyone involved.
